Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

Doesn't your evident failure to communicate worry you?

Not in the slightest.

You're full of surprises MM.

So what have you spent countless hours posting to internet discussion for? As in, what was (and, presumably, still is) your intent? your expectations?

Most folks can tell the difference between something that shows up in the lab, and something that does not.

Right.

Like a Mozode, the Mozwind, Mozcharges, Mozeparation, Mozplasma, and Moztronium.

Only 4% of your theory LCDM models is based on "real" physics that "really" shows up in a "real" lab.

First, fixed that for you.

And yes, if you say so ... but then, no one (other than you) can tell!

You see, no one (other than you) knows what ""real" physics" is (and you are most reluctant to explain), nor does anyone (again, other than you) know what "a "real" lab" is (and you are most reluctant to explain) ... and I'm not even going to think about what ""really" shows up" means.

I can't help it if you refuse to acknowledge that you failed to qualify you theories.

Dude, I can't acknowledge (or not acknowledge) something I do not understand.

What does "qualify you theories" mean?!?

I can't help it if you refuse to admit you have established no qualified cause/effect relationships

Dude, I can't admit (or not admit) something I do not understand.

What does "qualified cause/effect relationships" mean?!?

between lambda and your invisible friends.

I didn't know I had any "invisible friends"

May I ask how you came to the conclusion that I do?

I can't help it that you refuse to acknowledge that your exotic matter theories failed the lab tests.

Dude, I can't acknowledge (or not acknowledge) something that does not exist.

Where did you read my "exotic matter theories"?

About all I can do it point it out it to you.

And in that you have singularly failed.

MM, no one (other than you) who has participated in the threads, here in JREF, where you have tried to "point it out it to you" understands what you are saying.

When we (well, I anyway) take you at your word - "empirical" say - what you write is obviously nonsense. And when we (well, I anyway) try to get you to explain what all the words and phrases you use - in so obviously idiosyncratic ways - mean, you remain silent.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Laboratory Hypocrisy

Most folks can tell the difference between something that shows up in the lab, and something that does not.

We already know that (a) whether or not something shows up in a lab is not critical to empiricism, as the world outside Mozina understands the word, and (b) your alleged commitment to laboratory results is nothing more than cynical hypocrisy at its "best". You always do and always will ignore any and all laboratory experiments that defy your religious & philosophical prejudice. You are already on record as ignoring in situ laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection. Your hypocrisy is already exposed.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, not "wrong", simply not "perfect" yet.

No, Michael. Wrong. As it wrongety-wrong-wrong-wrong. As in so completely contrary to both physics as we understand it AND actual observations that we can conclude with absolute certainty that it doesn't come CLOSE to describing reality.

So what? That's bound to happen when you can't just "make up" whatever you want in your head and it has to show up in a lab.

Oh, the irony. You are indeed simply making stuff up that doesn't show up in lab, you're just too clueless to understand it.

Oh please. Your three metaphysical amigos have been a now show in the lab now for years. You can't qualify any of them in simplest of tests.

Once again, you resort to terminology that no one else uses, and which you refuse to define. This is deeply dishonest of you, Michael.

More like a "phobia". You're all deathly afraid of "current flows" in space.

Not at all. Rather, I understand enough physics to know what's required to make such currents flow, and what the effects of such current flows would be. Since both the causes and the effects for currents on the scale you require are in fact absent, I can deduce that such currents don't exist. It's called science, Michael. Try it some time.

You certainly have a fear of all things electrical in space. You do have distaste for 'electromagnetism' which is why you dumb everything down to 'magnetism', including that "magnetic flux tubes" that involved current flow.

It continually amuses me that you talk about my distaste for electromagnetism, but time and time again, you reveal your own ignorance of actual electromagnetism. You've got some fantasy construct of what electromagnetism is which doesn't match reality. Have you ever taken a course in electromagnetism? Have you ever even heard of Griffiths or Purcell or Jackson?

Alfven certainly understood physics

... unlike you.

and he called your beliefs pseudoscience.

Alfven never commented on my beliefs. But I find it quite amusing that you think he wouldn't laugh at your "iron sun" ideas.

I've already "learned" enough

No, Michael. You've hardly learned anything.

When you get your inflation genie to show up in the lab, wake me up.

Well, you got that bit right: you're asleep right now.

Until then you're woo isn't going to have any effect on me or my beliefs.

Make that two you got right. The actual process of scientific discovery is indeed irrelevant to your beliefs.

That's actually pure baloney. I've done more reading about astronomy (your concepts and mine) over the past 5 years than I did over the previous 10 years. I've listened to all your arguments.

And understood none of them.

I've seen you folks try to defend "negative pressure in a vacuum" and a host of other really sad, sad, sad behaviors.

And I've seen you struggle and fail to even define pressure.

I've tried to hear your side of the argument, but you refuse to even *TRY* to hear mine.

You're wrong, Michael. You are assuming that there is some validity to your arguments, but there isn't. That we point out a lack of validity doesn't mean we didn't examine the arguments. Quite the reverse: the detail with which your ideas have been dismantled is proof that people HAVE listened. And when requests for details and quantification have been made, we have been largely met with silence on your part.

As long as you remain this "faithful" to what can only be described as a "religion" based on "unseen entities", I can only assume you're driven by fear.

What an excellent description of your attachment to your iron sun model.

You have nothing to lose by adopting a more "live and let live" attitude

"Let me have my delusions". If you wanted to remain unchallenged, you shouldn't have come here.

but to an individual you seem unwilling to even *think* about the flaw in your own theories.

You're wrong about that too, Michael. But you've got to understand a theory before you can find its flaws, and you're far from understanding cosmology. Hell, you're far from understanding freshman physics.

You've simply never figured out the difference between absolute and relative pressure.

Nope. But YOU have failed to figure out the definition of pressure in the first place. Care to give it another try? I could always use a good laugh.

If you can't figure out that a vacuum can only hold a "positive pressure", then why should I believe you about anything?

How would you know what pressure a vacuum can have if you don't even know what pressure is?

The obviously silly part of your claim is that you cannot even tell us what we could add to a perfect vacuum to make it have a "negative pressure'.

Except that we do.

 

[GeeMack]

MM, no one (other than you) who has participated in the threads, here in JREF, where you have tried to "point it out it to you" understands what you are saying.

I don't for a moment believe that even Michael understands what he's saying. From the years of accumulated evidence it's apparent that Michael's arguments are composed of various words and phrases that seem scientific to him, but that those arguments do not have any actual real-world meaning. Clearly they do not to those who read them because, as you've pointed out, the usage is quite out of the ordinary and the glossary remains undefined. But it also appears that the arguments are meaningless strings of sciency sounding words and phrases to Michael himself.

When we (well, I anyway) take you at your word - "empirical" say - what you write is obviously nonsense. And when we (well, I anyway) try to get you to explain what all the words and phrases you use - in so obviously idiosyncratic ways - mean, you remain silent.

The refusal to define the terminology works for crackpots the same way as the refusal to quantify, well, anything at all. No numbers, no wrong numbers. Any old idiot can stumble along in a discussion with a slew of words and phrases that are undefined, and by sticking to that strategy the idiot can't ever be wrong. "No, I'm not wrong because that's not what I meant." It's juvenile, dishonest, and a despicable way to go about doing science.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The refusal to define the terminology works for crackpots the same way as the refusal to quantify, well, anything at all. No numbers, no wrong numbers. Any old idiot can stumble along in a discussion with a slew of words and phrases that are undefined, and by sticking to that strategy the idiot can't ever be wrong. "No, I'm not wrong because that's not what I meant." It's juvenile, dishonest, and a despicable way to go about doing science.

In defense of MM: What he is doing is definitely not science.

 

[GeeMack]

The refusal to define the terminology works for crackpots the same way as the refusal to quantify, well, anything at all. No numbers, no wrong numbers. Any old idiot can stumble along in a discussion with a slew of words and phrases that are undefined, and by sticking to that strategy the idiot can't ever be wrong. "No, I'm not wrong because that's not what I meant." It's juvenile, dishonest, and a despicable way to go about doing science.

In defense of MM: What he is doing is definitely not science.

Indeed. Of course I was speaking of crackpots in general and the strategy of intentionally staying so ambiguous as to avoid having to defend one's position with legitimate science. The world is full of pretenders like that. The guys who hang with the band because they think it makes them cool. The cop wannabes who fix up their cars to look like police cars, follow people around, and try to make people think they are cops. The folks we hear about who are actually practicing medicine for years when it's discovered they don't have the necessary education or credentials. Some people are just plain stupid, and in order to compensate for their lack of intellect they'll parrot a few sciency words and phrases and pretend to engage in some intellectual field or activity like astrophysics. At least it's harmless compared to being a bogus doctor.

 

[ben m]

More like a "phobia". You're all deathly afraid of "current flows" in space. I guess it's your great fear that physics will one day replace your woo.

That's funny, every time an actual space-plasma physicist other than Alfven uses the laws of E&M to discuss E&M phenomena in space, you ignore them. It's not that we're afraid of current. It's not that we ignore current. We're doing currents correctly; we know what currents are there (if any)---we can see the resulting B fields for example---and most astrophysical currents are small, carry minimal power, and don't exert large forces except in special short-range circumstances. You, Michael, are the one who is ignoring any information whatsoever---data, theory, math, consistency checks, order-of-magnitude estimates---that doesn't tell you what you want to hear about currents being enormous, powerful, force-carrying, etc.

 

[Perpetual Student]

MM:
Clearly, your refusal to acknowledge that you have any understanding of the following is condemning:

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

Even if you had only a superficial understanding (like me), perhaps you could follow a discussion about this subject. But in order to participate in a meaningful debate, you would have to have an intimate familiarity with all aspects and implications of Einstein's groundbreaking GR equation.
It is quite evident that you are devoid of any comprehension of GR, Einstein's GR equation, and the implications and historical context of GR and any of the relevant mathematics. Without a doubt, you are a pretender wasting your own and everyone else's time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Lambda-CDM cosmology is an entirely empirical theory.

No. It's 4% empirical physics, and 96% woo that will *NEVER* show up in a lab for all you know.

You have simply re-defined the word "empirical", twisting it out of all logical & reasonable shape, so you could then try to support your own failed notions by borrowing integrity from the word, when your own ideas have failed every single test to which they have ever been exposed.

If we were talking about religion, you'd have no problem with my use of the term "empirical". It wouldn't be an issue. An EM field has an "empirical" effect on real things on Earth. It shows up in a lab. It has a qualified and quantified physical effect on objects. Likewise gravity is an empirical cause of acceleration. There's really only special pleading going on here because your three metaphysical amigos fail to show up on Earth.

That's why no other intelligent person in all the world has ever chosen to agree with you, and no one ever will.

Er, I hate to break it to you, but lot's of folks are turning against mainstream theory Tim.

http://www.photonmatrix.com/bbnh/index.htm

I'm certainly not the only skeptic of mainstream theory Tim.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM:
Clearly, your refusal to acknowledge that you have any understanding of the following is condemning:

It's no more condemning that my refusal to do anyone else's math assignment PS. Where in that formula do you see any cause/effect qualification between lambda and any of the three mainstream invisible friends? What you're refusing to acknowledge is the *QUALIFICATION* problem of their theory and trying to cover it up with more math, which in this case you insist I do not understand. What's new? Your side is always trying to claim my math skills are somehow related to your lack of qualification, but they are irrelevant to the discussion.

I don't need to know any math at all to drive a car although I'm sure it requires a lot of math to make one work, especially in a modern one. I don't need to know any math to see my plasma ball "accelerate" plasma using an ordinary Em field. I don't need to know any math at all to experience the effects of gravity. I can fall flat on my face and "feel" the effect for myself if I have any doubt about the math.

What you're proposing here is preposterous PS. My math skills are completely unrelated to the *QUALIFICATION* problem of mainstream theory. It's not like I'm the only one bitching about their use of ad hoc entities either.

http://www.photonmatrix.com/bbnh/index.htm

I'm sure others on that list probably have superior math skills, but even without their math skills I see a serious problem with mainstream theory PS.

No amount of blaming of the individual will fix the basic problem in mainstream BB theory. It's patched together with three different invisible friends, all with ad hoc properties galore! It's not even relevant whether I understand any specific formula. The only thing that is relevant in this conversation in whether or not your can provide a tangible, empirical cause/effect relationship between any of your invisible friends, and anything in that formula. Care to do that for us?

 

[Michael Mozina]

In defense of MM: What he is doing is definitely not science.

In light of the fact that none of your trilogy of invisible friends show up in the lab, how does one differentiate between what you call "science" from any ordinary "religion"? Your "faith" in the "unseen" lacks the same empirical justification as another other brand of faith.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We already know that (a) whether or not something shows up in a lab is not critical to empiricism, as the world outside Mozina understands the word, and (b) your alleged commitment to laboratory results is nothing more than cynical hypocrisy at its "best". You always do and always will ignore any and all laboratory experiments that defy your religious & philosophical prejudice. You are already on record as ignoring in situ laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection. Your hypocrisy is already exposed.

Actually Tim, I've always (well, since Space.com) accepted that "circuit reconnection" is real, and works in the lab, I just think your terminology sucks.

Which one of those lab experiments involved no form of "current flow" prior to "reconnection" Tim?

 

[tusenfem]

Absolutely incredible. You'll go to almost any length to simply ignore his lab work entirely and all of his predictions too, including the prediction of both positive and negative ions in the solar wind.

He turned the sphere into a cathode DRD. He had it continually discharging to the sides of the box. He even writes about how "soot" accumulates on objects from the cathode in his experiments. You're pretty much in hard core denial at this point.

Still hoping (against better knowledge) that you will actually start to discuss Birkeland's papers, and tell us how you (dis)agree with my summary of the "are the solar particles that penetrate the earth's atmosphere positive or negative" where Birkeland clearly posits that there are both negative AND positive corpuscules emitted by the sun, with the only problem that the positive ones will not enter the earth's atmosphere and we thus have to go into space to prove that these positive corpuscules exist.

Nowhere does he claim that the sun is a cathode, whenever Birkeland uses the word cathode in his papers he always uses it in combination with the word "ray," meaning electrons in early 20th century speak.

Yes, Birkeland had his terrella function as a cathode (and often too as an anode, depending on what he wanted to look at) and yes there was soot, which is hardly surprising, thinking about the equipment he had to work with (compared to now-a-days, naturally is was probably state of the art in his time). Read Lucy Jago about how the box with the terrella had to be closed off, how his assistents had to go in there and smear the seems with some icky stuff (I forgot the name of it at the moment). It is absolutely no wonder that there was going to be soot all over, if you put discharges in such a weak dirty vacuum.

So, how about going through part of Birkland's works, just like I did, quote the old dude and explain to us your interpretation. I even started a new thread on that topic, where I posted some of my posts. Show us exactly where he claims that the sun is a cathode (and no do not use the NYT article, use Birkies own words from HIS writings), and don't forget to give page numbers of whatever you quote.

Looking forward to what you have to present.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's funny, every time an actual space-plasma physicist other than Alfven uses the laws of E&M to discuss E&M phenomena in space, you ignore them.

Every time that one of you folks used his formulas to describe "magnetic reconnection" Alfven chose to ignore it. Well, actually he called it pseudoscience and hoped it would die a natural death. Instead it's simply taken off now that he's dead and cant defend his theory any longer. Of course all your MR "experiments" require "particle" flow and "circuits" to make them work. Nothing new there.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still hoping (against better knowledge) that you will actually start to discuss Birkeland's papers, and tell us how you (dis)agree with my summary of the "are the solar particles that penetrate the earth's atmosphere positive or negative" where Birkeland clearly posits that there are both negative AND positive corpuscules emitted by the sun, with the only problem that the positive ones will not enter the earth's atmosphere and we thus have to go into space to prove that these positive corpuscules exist.

There are just so many hours in the day, and so many folks to respond to on so many different topics.

FYI, I really do appreciate your efforts and I will try to respond in kind this weekend. I am going to take some down time however so it may be closer to Monday.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

No. It's 4% empirical physics, and 96% woo empirical physics (also) that will *NEVER* has either already shown up in a lab for as we all you to know, or can be otherwise falsified.

Fixed that for you.

If we were talking about religion, you'd have no problem with my use of the term "empirical". It wouldn't be an issue. An EM field has an "empirical" effect on real things on Earth. It shows up in a lab. It has a qualified and quantified physical effect on objects. Likewise gravity is an empirical cause of acceleration.

The trouble is that neither "an EM field" nor "gravity" exists, in any real sense, except for the various theories which describe them.

Don't believe me?

OK, explain what "an EM field" is, comprehensively, without reference to Maxwell's equations, QED, or some variant thereof.

Now we all know that you don't like detest modern theories of electromagnetism and gravity, but your personal math-phobia has zero impact on the success (or otherwise) of such theories.

Er, I hate to break it to you, but lot's of folks are turning against mainstream theory Tim.

http://www.photonmatrix.com/bbnh/index.htm

I'm certainly not the only skeptic of mainstream theory Tim.

But you're not a "skeptic of mainstream theory" MM; being a skeptic requires you to have at least a minimal understanding of it.

As is abundantly clear, you have no such understanding.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what have you spent countless hours posting to internet discussion for?

Pleasure and enjoyment?

As in, what was (and, presumably, still is) your intent? your expectations?

I sort of gave up having a lot of "expectations" during internet discussions after debating a few YEC that I ran into on the internet. Some folks simply refuse to acknowledge the qualification problems with their ideas in terms of empirical physics.

You see, no one (other than you) knows what ""real" physics" is (and you are most reluctant to explain),

Oh I've explained that "real physics" shows up in the lab. EM fields show up in the lab. They are "real" and have a real and measurable physical effect on real things. Likewise gravity is "real physics". It's not shy around the lab. Gravity shows up all the time, right on command. Neutrinos are also "real". They have a known empirical source. They have been detected in empirical experiments on Earth. They have a real effect on real things.

WIMPS are not "real". They've been falsified in physical tests of concept in fact. They fail to show up. Your inflation genie isn't real either. It's "make believe" and I even know the individual that made it up in his head without any scientific precedent whatsoever. "Dark energy" isn't real. It fails to show up in the lab every single time. It fails to have any effect on anything.

I don't have to "have faith" to "experience" the EM field. Likewise I don't have to "have faith" to experience gravity. I evidently have to have faith in inflation because it's evidently a dead deity these days. I also have to "have faith" in exotic forms of matter since they failed to show up in recent experiments. I also have to "have faith" in exotic forms of energy evidently only because you refuse to consider the one logical thing that MIGHT drive an acceleration process. I'm afraid your whole religion is driven by pure faith because it's a epic fail in the lab.

 

[GeeMack]

There are just so many hours in the day, and so many folks to respond to on so many different topics.

At least you've finally recognized that your Sun arguments are crap and you've abandoned that silly task. That'll give you more time to throw around your sciency talkin' and arguments from incredulity and ignorance here.

 

[GeeMack]

Pleasure and enjoyment?

I sort of gave up having a lot of "&@^!$" during internet discussions after debating a few YEC that I ran into on the internet. Some folks simply refuse to acknowledge the &!$%~^&!& problems with their ideas in terms of *^!@^# physics.

Oh I've explained that "*#%$^&@^" shows up in the lab. EM fields show up in the lab. They are "&%^@" and have a $#@#%@ and &@$^ physical effect on $@$^ things. Likewise &*@W%^@ is "@$!% &%^%". It's not shy around the lab. &@^# shows up all the time, right on command. Neutrinos are also "$#^@^". The have a known source. They have been detected in $%!#% experiments on Earth. They have a ^@$# effect on @#@% things.

WIMPS are not "$^!$%". They've been &%$^# in &@$%#% %&#$%@ of concept in fact. They fail to show up. Your ^%@% %&@ isn't &@%^ either. It's "%&@%$" and I even know the individual that made it up in his head without any %&@@ precedent whatsoever. "&^@$^#" isn't $#%@!$. It fails to show up in the lab every single time. It fails to have any effect on anything.

I don't have to "^*@%" to "%&@%&" the EM field. Likewise I don't have to "%^@$#" to experience &@#. I evidently have to have &@^! in %&@!$^# because it's evidently a dead deity these days. I also have to "&@%$#" in exotic forms of matter since they failed to show up in recent experiments. I also have to "@&!^" in exotic forms of energy evidently only because you refuse to consider the one logical thing that MIGHT drive an &@$%^@$ process. I'm afraid your whole &@#$^# is driven by pure &@$## because it's a epic fail in the lab.

And that's what your attempt at communication looks like, Michael. You refuse to define your terms. Your entire argument is, as always, meaningless gibberish.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Oh I've explained that "real physics" shows up in the lab. EM fields show up in the lab. They are "real" and have a real and measurable physical effect on real things. Likewise gravity is "real physics". It's not shy around the lab. Gravity shows up all the time, right on command. Neutrinos are also "real". They have a known empirical source. They have been detected in empirical experiments on Earth. They have a real effect on real things.

WIMPS are not "real". They've been falsified in physical tests of concept in fact. They fail to show up. Your inflation genie isn't real either. It's "make believe" and I even know the individual that made it up in his head without any scientific precedent whatsoever. "Dark energy" isn't real. It fails to show up in the lab every single time. It fails to have any effect on anything.

We've been over this, many times, and whenever anyone starts to get close to having you say something sufficiently concrete to challenge, you stop posting/responding/answering/etc.

So, one more time, with feelin':

* by your definition all astronomy is non-science

* no stars, galaxies, Jupiters, even Moons (Luna) show up in your lab, so they are not ""real""

* no Mozodes, Mozplasma, Moztronium, Mozwinds, Mozeparation, or Mozcharge shows up in your lab, but that doesn't stop you believing in them.

I don't have to "have faith" to "experience" the EM field.

OK, explain what "an EM field" is, comprehensively, without reference to Maxwell's equations, QED, or some variant thereof.

Alternatively, explain how you ""experience" [an] EM field". In your explanation make sure it is objective, and can be independently verified.